What these books still conceal, however, is the fact that the neocons are motivated by their Jewish ethnicity and the interests of the state of Israel. Instead the neocons are made to appear as an ideological group loyal solely to what they believe is good for the US. Consequently, this approach, despite allowing for some elements of truth, distorts the overall picture in a serious way.

Stalin: The Enduring Legacy considers the 'Man of Steel' in a manner
that will outrage dogmatists of both Left and Right. Stalinist Russia is
reassessed as a state that transcended Marxism, and proceeded on a
nationalist and imperial path rather than as the citadel of 'world
revolution'. Stalin reversed many early Bolshevik policies
re-instituting, for example, the traditional family. He abolished the
Communist International, championed 'realism' in the arts and rejected
post-1945 US plans for a 'new world order'. Despite so-called
'de-Stalinization' after his death, the Soviet bloc continued to oppose
globalism, as does Putin's Russia. Stalin: The Enduring Legacy, examines
the anti-Marxist character of Stalinism, the legitimacy of the Moscow
Trials against the 'Old Bolsheviks', the origins of the Cold War, the
development of Trotskyism as a tool of US foreign policy, the question
of Stalin's murder, and the relevance of Russia to the future of world
power politics. 'Dr. Bolton's book Stalin: The Enduring Legacy is a
major contribution to the proper understanding of Russian, as well as
American, politics and society in the twentieth century. It brushes
aside the anti-Stalinist biases of the Trotskyist American chroniclers
of this historical period to reveal the unquestionable integrity of
Stalin as a nationalist leader. At the same time, it highlights the
vital differences between the Russian national character rooted in the
soil and history of Russia, and its opposite,the rootless Jewish
cosmopolitanism that Trotskyist Marxism sought to impose on the Russians
- as well as on the rest of the world'. - Dr Alexander Jacob

(...)The
program of Kulturkampf against the Soviet bloc can be traced to
Trotsky, always a very handy tool for international finance. In 1938
André Breton,[13] Mexican communist muralist Diego Rivera,[14] and Leon
Trotsky issued a manifesto entitled Towards a Free Revolutionary
Art.[15] The manifesto was published in the Autumn 1938 issue of The
Partisan Review, a magazine that was of significance in the Cold
War-Trotskyite offensive. Trotsky, according to Breton, had actually
written the Manifesto, which states:

Insofar as it originates with an
individual, insofar as it brings into play subjective talents to create
something which brings about an objective enriching of culture, any
philosophical, sociological, scientific, or artistic discovery seems to
be the fruit of a precious chance, that is to say, the manifestation, more or less spontaneous, of necessity.
. . . Specifically, we cannot remain indifferent to the intellectual
conditions under which creative activity takes place, nor should we fail
to pay all respect to those particular laws that govern intellectual
creation.

In the contemporary world we must
recognize the ever more widespread destruction of those conditions under
which intellectual creation is possible. . . . The regime of Hitler,
now that it has rid Germany of all those artists whose work expressed
the slightest sympathy for liberty, however superficial, has reduced
those who still consent to take up pen or brush to the status of
domestic servants of the regime. . . . If reports may be believed, it is
the same in the Soviet Union. . . . True art, which is not content to
play variations on ready-made models but rather insists on expressing
the inner needs of man and of mankind in its time — true art is unable not to be revolutionary, not
to aspire to a complete and radical reconstruction of society. . . . We
recognize that only the social revolution can sweep clean the path for a
new culture. If, however, we reject all solidarity with the bureaucracy
now in control of the Soviet Union it is precisely because, in our
eyes, it represents, not communism, but its most treacherous and
dangerous enemy. . . .

The criterion for art given here by Trotsky seems more of the nature
of the anarchism of Breton and of the future New Left than of the
collectivist nature of Marxism. F. Chernov, whose important statement on
the arts from a Stalinist viewpoint will be considered below, was to
refer to such art as “nihilism.”

Given that the manifesto was published in The Partisan Review,
which was later to receive subsidies from the CIA and the tax-exempt
foundations as party to what became the “Cultural Cold War,” this
Trotskyist art manifesto served as the basis for the art policy that was
adopted after World War II by the CIA and the globalists as part of the
Cold War offensive.[16] Trotsky wrote Towards a Free Revolutionary Art
as a call for mobilization by artists throughout the world, to oppose
on the cultural front Fascism and Stalinism, which to many Leftists and
communists were synonymous...

At the beginning of 1989, I thought that “Russia” (the USSR) was an
evil empire, a totalitarian system built on repression and propaganda
and bent on global domination. I also thought that the United States was
the principal impediment to Soviet world domination, the bulwark of
freedom. By the end of 1989, I was giddy,
for America had stood firm long enough for the USSR to collapse of its
internal contradictions before it could cast its net over the entire
globe.

Today, however, things seem very different. Like many White
Nationalists, I see the United States as an evil empire, a soft
totalitarian system built on lies and repression and pursuing global
domination. Indeed, our system is built on the same lie as Communism:
human equality. Furthermore, Russia is now the principal bulwark against
American global domination.

But this time, the stake is not “freedom” but something far more
important, for if unchecked, American-style global liberalism and
capitalism mean the death of the white race. Thus, if our race is to
survive, Russia must stand firm against globalization until the American
system succumbs to its own inner contradictions before it can drag the
rest of the world down with it.

Kerry Bolton’s Stalin: The Enduring Legacy shows that the roots of the present world situation are far deeper than I had imagined.

Stalin is one of history’s greatest monsters, and Bolton’s book does
not attempt to deny or minimize Stalin’s crimes, although I would find
such a revisionist project interesting to read, given that our image of
Stalin was manufactured by some of the same people who manufactured our
image of Hitler, which is largely false.

Bolton’s main concern is with Stalin’s “legacy,” namely his influence on present-day Realpolitik,
the conflict between the forces of globalization and the forces of
national self-determination. And it turns out that Stalin’s principal
enemy is our own, namely the international Jewish community, although
Stalin himself never saw it that way.

Bolton’s book is filled with surprising revelations.

Chapter 1, “Stalin’s Fight Against International Communism,”
outlines the basis of Stalin’s conflict with Trotsky. Once in power,
Stalin reversed a number of the policies established by Lenin and
favored by Trotsky and his followers.

In terms of economic policy, Lenin and Trotsky favored a
rapprochement with international capitalism, particularly the
international Jewish banks that had funded Bolshevism from the
beginning. Stalin, however, was not Jewish.
He was also an orthodox Communist. He funded the revolution by robbing
banks, not borrowing from them. Thus Stalin turned the USSR toward
economic autarky and full-scale collectivization of industry and
agriculture, with catastrophic consequences for the peasantry and
workers.

Stalin did, however, pursue much healthier policies in the social
realm. He sought to restore the family and marriage, limit access to
abortion, reestablish discipline and standards in education, and combat
“rootless cosmopolitanism” and “formalism” in art and culture in the
name of artistic styles rooted in folk culture and capable of appealing
to and elevating the tastes of the masses.

Stalin is widely condemned as a philistine, but in truth he had
well-developed tastes in art and music. The positive effects that he had
on Soviet culture can be illustrated most clearly by comparing
Shostakovich’s fourth symphony, an avant-garde train-wreck which he withdrew under criticism, with his fifth symphony, one of the great symphonies of the 20th century, which Stalin wrung out of him using the muse of terror.

Bolton never really gives us a sense of why Stalin did any of this.
What really made him tick? He was clearly highly intelligent, outfoxing
some of the shrewdest statesmen and schemers in history. He was also
demonstrably well-versed in Marxist theory and appeared to be a sincere
Communist. He knew a great deal about history. And he had excellent
taste in music.

Yet he seemed entirely lacking in morality and human warmth. He was
not a Russian, so he could not be accused of nationalistic sentiments.
He was also an atheist, so religion played no role in his life. He had
no sentimentality about the past and was a deep-dyed revolutionary. But
in spite of all this, perhaps out of sheer pragmatism, Stalin gave the
USSR a somewhat nationalistic, somewhat socially conservative form of
socialism.

Chapter 2, “Stalin and the Art of Rootless Cosmopolitanism,” deals
with the cozy relationship between Trotskyite exiles in the United
States, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Rockefeller foundation
in promoting Abstract Expressionism and other forms of modern art as the
all American answer to Stalinist philistinism.

The fact that the US government ended up using the tax dollars of
Idaho potato farmers and Texas ranchers to promote cultural Bolshevism
in the art world as a purely symbolic element of the Trotskyite
opposition to Stalin is, frankly, astonishing. Whenever whites permit a
critical mass of Jews in our societies, it seems inevitable that we
become pawns in Jewish machinations, even arcane “inner party” disputes
that are utterly detached from reality.

Chapter 3, “The Moscow Trials in Historical Context,”
is the most remarkable chapter in the book. Here Bolton lays out in
great detail just how plausible Stalin’s case against the Trotskyite
opposition was.

The fact that so many of Stalin’s policy preferences ran counter to
the ethnic interests and tastes of Bolshevism’s huge Jewish contingent
meant that Stalin’s policies inevitably seemed anti-Semitic to the most
ethnocentric Jewish communists, who became the core of the Trotskyite
opposition. (Later, the the Zionist wing of the Trotskyite movement
became the nucleus of neconservatism.)

But calling Stalin an anti-Semite is an undeserved compliment. Yes,
he was an anti-Trotskyite. Yes, later he was an anti-Zionist. Yes,
Stalin killed countless Jewish Bolsheviks. But one could not purge an
overwhelmingly Jewish party without purging some Jews. Nevertheless,
Stalin maintained the loyalty of many Jewish communists to the very end.
Thus Stalin was an anti-Semite only in Joe Sobran’s sense of the term:
Jews hated him. But Stalin didn’t hate Jews as such. He fought them only
to the extent that they opposed his policies and his conception of
Communism.

But nevertheless, Stalin did change the ethnic character of Soviet
Communism from something recognizably Jewish and nihilistic to something
recognizably Russian and socially conservative. And although Jews were a
privileged people in the USSR up to the very end, they no longer felt
that the regime was theirs. According to Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together,
after Stalin’s death, the regime took active steps to curb Jewish
overrepresentation in elite institutions. Jews were still massively
overrepresented, but from the kvetching, you would think they
were making bricks for the pharaoh. By the 1970s, an exodus to Israel
and the United States was underway. This gives some hope for American
whites. For even token efforts to limit Jewish overrepresentation in our
society will be magnified immensely by Jewish hypersensitivity, perhaps
enough to spark an exodus of our own.

Chapters 4 and 5 deal with the origins of the Cold War. Contrary to
the old Right-wing American canard that the United Nations was a
communist conspiracy to destroy American sovereignty, the United Nations
actually sought to establish a genuine world government under US
control at the end of the Second World War, and it was Stalin who
stopped it in its tracks. Furthermore, the United States wanted to
“internationalize” atomic energy, which meant that the UN, under the
control of the US, would take control of uranium mining and refinement
to maintain the US monopoly on atomic weapons. When Stalin said nyet
to both, one world government was halted and the Cold War was off and
running. And, as it turns out, Trotskyites took part in every aspect of
the Cold War’s implementation.

Chapters 6 and 7 deal with Stalin’s death (poison) and post-Soviet
Russia. After the collapse of the USSR, the United States sought to
establish a unipolar hegemony and to bring Russia into the global
system. Many of the architects of this New World Order were
neoconservative offshoots of the Trotskyite movement and their ethnic
kin. Vladimir Putin, however, spiked their plans, which is one reason he
is likened to Stalin today. And that is how we have arrived at the
present correlation of forces: globalist, Judaized America vs. European,
nationalist Russia.

I highly recommend Stalin: The Enduring Legacy. It is a
slender volume of 160 pages that you can breeze through in an afternoon.
My only complaint is that the book was evidently rushed into print and
is swarming with typos and formatting problems that will inevitably
detract somewhat from its impact.

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal.
You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you
can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add
special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

The
Moscow Trials were symptomatic of a great divide that had occurred in
Bolshevism. The Allied alliance with Stalin during World War II had
formed an assumption among internationalists of the US ‘foreign policy
establishment’ that after the Axis defeat a ‘new world order’ might
emerge via the United Nations Organisation. This assumption was
ill-founded, and the result was the Cold War. Trotskyists emerged as
avid Cold Warriors dialectically concluding that the USSR represented
the primary obstacle to world socialism. This essay examines the
dialectical process by which major factions of Trotskyism became, in
Stalinist parlance, a ‘tool of foreign powers and of world capitalism.’
(...)Stalin Correct in Fundamental Accusations Against Trotskyites
What is significant is that Khrushchev did concede that Stalin was
correct in his fundamental allegation that the Trotskyists, Bukharinites
et al represented a faction that sought the ‘restoration of capitalism
and capitulation to the world bourgeoisie’. However Khrushchev and even
Stalin could not go far enough in their denunciation of Trotskyists et
al as seeking to ‘restore capitalism’ and as being agents of foreign
powers. To expose the full facts in regard to such accusations would
also mean to expose some unpalatable, hidden factors of the Bolshevik
Revolution itself, and of Lenin; which would undermine the whole edifice
upon which Soviet authority rested – the October 1917 Revolution.
Lenin, and Trotsky in particular, had intricate associations with many
un-proletarian individuals and interests.
The fact of behind the scenes machinations between the Bolsheviks and
international finance was commented upon publicly by two very
well-positioned but quite different sources: Henry Wickham Steed,
conservative editor of The London Times, and Samuel Gompers, head of the American Federation of Labour.
In a first-hand account of the Peace Conference of 1919 Wickham Steed
stated that proceedings were interrupted by the return from Moscow of
William C Bullitt and Lincoln Steffens, ‘who had been sent to Russia
towards the middle of February by Colonel House[1] and Mr. Lansing, for
the purpose of studying conditions, political and economic, therein for
the benefit of the American Commissioners plenipotentiary to negotiate
peace.’[2] Steed stated specifically and at some length that
international finance was behind the move for recognition of the
Bolshevik regime and other moves in favour of the Bolsheviks, stating
that: ‘Potent international financial interests were at work in favour
of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists.’[3] In return for
diplomatic recognition Tchitcherin, the Bolshevist Commissary for
Foreign Affairs, was offering ‘extensive commercial and economic
concessions.’[4]
For his part, Samuel Gompers, the American labour leader, was vehemently
opposed to the Bolsheviks and any recognition or commercial
transactions, stating to the press in regard to negotiations at the
international economic conference at Genoa, that a group of ‘predatory
international financiers’ were working for the recognition of the
Bolshevik regime for the opening up of resources for exploitation.
Gompers described this as an ‘Anglo-American-German banking group’. He
also commented that prominent Americans who had a history of anti-labour
attitudes were advocating recognition of the Bolshevik regime.[5]Trotsky’s Banking Connections
What is of significance here however is that Trotsky in particular was
the focus of attention by many individuals acting on behalf not only of
foreign powers but of international financial institutions. Hence while
Stalin and even Khrushchev could aver to the association of Trotsky with
foreign powers and even – albeit vaguely – with seeking the
‘restoration of capitalism and capitulation to the world bourgeoisie’,
to trace the links more specifically to international finance would
inevitably lead to the association also of the Bolshevik regime per se
to those same sources, thus undermining the founding myth of the USSR as
being the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.
These associations between Trotsky and international finance, as well as
foreign intelligence services, have been meticulously documented by Dr
Richard Spence.[6] Spence states that ‘Trotsky was the recipient of
mysterious financial assistance and was a person of keen interest to
German, Russian and British agents’. Such contentions are very similar
to the charges against Trotsky et al at the Moscow Trials, and there are
details and personalities involved, said to have been extracted under
torture and threats, that are in fact confirmed by Spence, who traces
Trotsky’s patronage as far back as 1916 when he was an exile from
Czarist Russia and was being expelled from a succession of countries in
Europe before finding his way to the USA, prior to his return to Russia
in 1917 to play his part in the Revolution. Expelled from France to
Spain, Trotsky was locked up as a ‘terrorist agitator’ for three and a
half days in comfortable conditions.[7] Ernst Bark, perhaps with the use
of German funds, arranged Trotsky’s release and his transfer to Cadiz
to await passage with his family to New York and paid for first class
passage on the SS Montserrat. Bark was cousin of the Czar’s minister of
finance Petr Bark who, despite his service to the Czar, had the
pro-German, pro-Bolshevik banker Olof Aschberg, of the Nya Banken,
Sweden, as his financial agent for his New York dealings. A report
reaching US Military Intelligence in 1918 stated that Trotsky had been
‘bought by the Germans’, and that he was organising the Bolshevik[8]
movement with Parvus.(...)

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin has in actuality murdered
more people than Adolph Hitler. Stalin, like Hitler, was an anti-Semite
and the Jews of the Soviet Union suffered immensely under his rule. Many
Jews, such as Genya Reichman, were forced to engage in slave labor
under Stalin upon fleeing Nazis-controlled areas. In fact, even Jewish
refugee children, such as Annia Segal, grew up under horrendous
conditions in the Soviet Gulag. Yet, by 1953, the status of Soviet Jewry had deteriorated even further and Soviet Jews were facing a possible genocide.
But on Purim about 60 years ago, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin
collapsed. Soon afterwards, he died, thus sparing the Jewish people
another Holocaust. It was a miracle!

Stalin’s plan to annihilate
the Jews of the Soviet Union which he had formulated immediately prior
to his death is one of the lesser known facts of history. Yet, not
even ten years after the conclusion of the Holocaust, there was a
full-scale attack upon Soviet Jews, complete with purges, executions,
imprisonments, and the imposed exile of tens of thousands of Jews.
In early 1953, the Soviet media was alleging that Jewish doctors had a
conspiracy to poison top-level Soviet officials, thus increasing the
level of hostility directed towards Soviet Jews. The Jews of the Soviet
Union were living in terror under Stalin, especially in the early
1950’s. And then, in the midst of the so-called doctor’s plot, Stalin
had started to plan for the deportation of 2 to 4 million Jews to
Siberia and Central Asia, where they would be annihilated, as a
collective punishment for a conspiracy invented by the Stalin-controlled
Soviet media.

Kliment Yefremovich Voroshilov

During
a meeting with top-level Soviet officials, there were other Soviet
government members who did oppose Stalin’s plans against the Jewish
people. Vyacheslav Molotov, who was married to a Jewish woman, staunchly
objected to Stalin’s plans against the Jewish people and had the
audacity to tell the dictator that such a move would be horrendous for
public relations. Kliment Yefremovich Voroshilov, who also had a
Jewish wife, actually went as far as chasing away Soviet agents from
his home using a rifle in order to protect his Jewish wife. He
then had the audacity to tell Stalin that he no longer wished to be a
member of the Communist Party. An enraged Stalin responded that only he
had the right to determine who will be in the Communist Party. Soon
after that, on that Purim day about 60 years ago, Stalin collapsed on the floor and he would die not long after that.

Interestingly,
on the same day that Joseph Stalin collapsed, the Lubavich Rebbe was
leading a Purim gathering. Members of the Jewish community had asked for
him to pray for the Soviet Jewish community. However, instead of doing
this, the Lubavich Rebbe told a story. He proclaimed, “After the czar
fell in Russia, it was announced that the government would be holding
elections. The Rebbe Rashab, fifth to Chabad dynasty, sent word to the
Chasidim that they were to participate in the voting process. There was
one particular Chasid who was completely removed from the affairs of the
world; to him the political arena was foreign territory. Nonetheless,
having received an explicit instruction from the Rebbe, he set out to
fulfill his command. With a sense of awe and reverence he immersed
himself in a mikvah, donned his gartel (belt for prayer) and set out for
the polling booth. Of course, when he got there, he had no idea what he
was expected to do, but some of the more worldly Chasidim helped him
cast his vote. Adjusting his gartel, the Chasid did what everyone else
was doing. When the votes were cast, everyone cried out ‘Hurrah!’ Taking
his cue from those around him he likewise cried out, ‘Hurrah! Hurrah!
Hurrah!’”

Yet in this mans heart, he meant to cry this out in Hebrew, which is Hu-Ra (he is evil).
As the Lubavich Rebbe stated the word “Hu-rah,” his face was burning in
such an inspiring way that his Purim crowd also began to shout
“Hu-rah,” in regards to Stalin. It is an interesting coincidence that
soon after that Stalin passed away. It is as if the Jewish people were praying for a miracle and they got one. According to Dr. Rushnin, author of Why Stalin Didn’t Murder All of the Jews,
Stalin’s death “in itself [is] such a happy end to a huge threat [that]
deserves to be remembered and commemorated by all Jews.” Jews
traditionally believe that whenever the Jewish community is miraculously
saved from disaster, this date should be celebrated on the appropriate
date. Thus, in 1996, Dr. Rushnin initiated Little Purim
celebrations in honor of Soviet Jewry being saved and this Little Soviet
Purim is celebrated in over 100 synagogues across the United States.

Joseph
Stalin, the dictator of the Soviet Union, responsible for the murder of
over twenty million human beings (with some estimates running as high
as 40,000,000) was one of the most evil tyrants the world has ever
known. In modern times, he was paralleled only by Hitler, may their
names be erased.

In early 1953, according to many
historians, Stalin began to orchestrate a plan which, he intended, would
result in the deportation of millions of Jews of the Soviet Union to
Siberia and Central Asia and, eventually, to their annihilation.

His
ruse began with a blood libel: A group of Jewish doctors were “caught”
conspiring to poison top Soviet officials, and thereby “destroy the
motherland.” Stoked by the Russian propaganda machine, anti-Semitic
hatred was riled against the Jews.

With Stalin poised to
take the next step of his nefarious plot – the extent of which was
unknown to the public at the time – at least one Jewish leader seems to
have known of the scheme.

In his recent testimony given
to the My Encounter with the Rebbe project, Reb Yoel Kahan, who
participated in the Rebbe’s Farbrengen of Purim, 5713, shared the events
of that day which, clearly, played a role in the story’s unexpected
ending. As in the original Purim story, “It was turned upside down, and
the Jews were victorious over their enemies.”

This special interview was dedicated in loving memory of: Tzvi Yechetzkel Ben Eliezer Gordon
To view click play

If
your paper is to continue its excellent work of opposing the policy of
the Jew, please do not fight Russia also, for we in Europe look upon it
as the only hope to prevent Jewish world domination by means of its
stupid, willing, technically clever American slaves, the destroyers of
Europe’s cities, the hate-mongers of the vile occupation and the hangmen
of Nuremberg.

—European correspondent to Common Sense (a newspaper published in the US between 1947 and 1972)

Both
Germans and Russians seemed to have a better grasp of the Jewish
Question than the trusting, naive Americans with little experience in
the plate tectonics of the clash of civilizations. At the left, a
National Socialist pamphlet: “Roosevelt betrays America!” The Germans
thus caricatured a Jew controlling the American president as his puppet.

In his book Myths and the Truth about 1937: Stalin’s Counter-Revolution (YAZA-PRESS, Moscow, 2010, 288 pp.),Andrei
Burovsky assumes the role of devil’s advocate or apologist for the
crimes committed by Josef Stalin during the time of “The Great Purge.”(...)

Burovsky’s
view is that the events of 1937 did not represent the usual case in
which the devil under indictment is accused of crimes
against innocent victims, but rather a case in which the devil is
alleged to have committed crimes against another devil of even greater
evil; it was the war between Stalin and Trotsky. True, Stalin had
succeeded in exiling his nemesis in 1929, but the spirit of Trotskyism,
according to Burovsky, had permeated the entire communist establishment
and the Red dictator was determined to eradicate it.

The author refers to the war between the two devils as Stalin’s
counter-revolution because, until Stalin undertook the great purge, the
revolution and the Communist state had been overwhelmingly a Jewish
enterprise with Lenin and Trotsky the leading lights. The goal of the
Trotskyites, as demonstrated by the Comintern [Communist International],
was to establish a permanent worldwide revolution “to fight by all
available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the
international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international
Soviet Republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the
state.”

By this definition, it was quite obvious that Trotsky and his cohorts
were embarking upon a reckless adventure to establish a
utopia based on nothing except their own fanciful dreams. To accomplish
this, agents in every important country, usually citizens of those
countries, either volunteered or were recruited to undermine the
bourgeois government under which they lived and agitate for
world revolution.

According to Burovsky, because Trotsky and a plethora of fellow Jews
already held sway in the Soviet Union, many of their coreligionists in
the free world both openly (when possible) and secretly (if not
possible) admired the accomplishment of their fellow Jews and lent their
services in the establishment of the proletarian utopia. (...)

For Burovsky and many outsiders, the internal political wars within
the Soviet Union seemed more like the falling out of a gang of thieves
who had stolen the Russian Empire and who were now fighting over the
spoils. And thieves they were. Having first hijacked the country and
then looted the Russian banks and citizens of their wealth, Lenin,
Trotsky, Radek, Kollontai, Dzerzhinsky, and a host of other non-Russians
accumulated fortunes. Only Stalin refrained. Like Hitler, his future
nemesis, Stalin lived quite modestly. The new Communist elite, however, lived exceedingly well, frequenting the elegant shops and
government offices along Arbat Street, the Fifth Avenue of Moscow, where
very few native Russians could afford to visit. (...)

Stalin, aside from his determination to eliminate any possible threat
to his sole leadership, also feared that the Trotskyite approach would
endanger Communism by alerting the capitalist countries to the threat it
represented. Instead, he thought it would be much more prudent to first
establish communism in Russia, protect and nurture it, and during this
incubation period build the most powerful armed forces in the world
ready to pounce on and take the countries of Europe at the most
opportune time, namely, when the capitalist states were exhausted from
the inevitable next world war. He therefore sought to remove all
Trotskyite-infected and other potentially dangerous elements from the
Soviet State in a major purge before that war occurred. This, according
to Professor Burovsky, was the main reason for Stalin’s Purge of 1937 and 1938.

For Professor Burovsky the unending bitter political squabbles
following the revolution were evidence that the Civil War waged between
the White and Red Russians (1918–1922), between the former rulers and
the usurpers, was simply followed by an internal civil war between
communistic internationalist intellectuals who viewed the whole world as
their oyster (Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and the rest) and
the more conservative, nationalistic Stalinists who favored stability. (...)

To be sure, Jews were prominent in both factions, but Stalin insisted
their loyalty be directed exclusively to his concept of a “socialist”
Soviet Union while their own interests and unrealistic goals be set
aside. When, in his eyes, they did not comply, he had them killed.

Burovsky describes how the crimes committed by the usurpers of power
in Russia far exceeded anything known to date, including even the French
Revolution. During the usurpation of power in the revolution, no fewer
than two million met their death. In the continuing period of the
internal civil war, Burovsky estimates, 9–13 million eventually lost
their lives. However, the crimes of the Lenin-Trotsky faction were either
glossed over or simply not mentioned in the press or on the radio, while
the Western media concentrated on and exaggerated those committed by
Stalin during the “Great Purge.” Whereas the French Revolution had
pitted Frenchmen against Frenchmen, and the American Revolution,
Englishmen against Englishmen, the so-called Russian Revolution was
entirely different. This was a case of minorities, mostly Jews, in the
Empire usurping power from the majority Russians and destroying
previously existing Russian elites.

According to Burovsky, the Leninists and Trotskyites made no secret
of their intent to create a new world on the ashes of the old. In their
anthem, The Song of the Destroyers, they sing:

We shall burn everything, we shall destroy everything,
We shall wipe everything from the face of the Earth,
We shall extinguish the old Sun,
We shall ignite a new Sun. (p. 155)

Lenin and Trotsky, Burovsky maintains, invented and practiced
genocide freely in what they termed the “zoological milieu”, i.e., the
Russian people, ruthlessly murdering entire layers of Russian society.
As soon as members of the former ruling class (high government
officials, generals, intellectuals, clergy, etc.) were eliminated, their
positions were filled with Jewish revolutionaries. The children of the
former upper classes were forbidden to attend the best schools and
universities; only the children of the revolutionaries were granted
access. According to Jewish World, 1939, Jews, representing
1.8% of the total population, constituted 20% of the students in higher
institutes of learning in the USSR in 1939.[4] (p. 230)

The destruction of Christian civilization was high on Lenin and
Trotsky’s hit list. All displays of Christian belief were outlawed.
Churches were first looted of their art treasures and then converted
into warehouses, theaters, recreation centers, and worse. Priests, nuns,
and all other officers of the Church were either murdered or sent to
the GULAG. Celebrations of Christmas, Easter, and Holy Days were
forbidden. The icon corner in most Russian homes was banned. Because
Jews were prominent among the new rulers and enforcers, all acts of
anti-Semitism were made punishable by death. In a speech Trotsky
announced the unveiling of the first statue in the world of Judas
Iscariot, a man, the Communist leader said, who understood that
Christianity was a phony religion and had the courage to break the bonds
that bound him to it. Similar statues appeared in other cities. The
people, however, could not protest because of the laws against
anti-Semitism.

Burovsky proceeds to describe how the revolutionaries tried to
gradually replace the civilization achieved in Russia under the Orthodox Church
and the Czars with something entirely alien to the native people. Under
the Czars Russia gave the world Pushkin, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, and other
giants of literature. By way of contrast, the Communist regime produced
a bevy of poets and short story writers. Burovsky singles out Osip
Mandelshtam, Yevgenia Ginzburg, and Isaak Babel, who lent their services
to the new regime. Mandelshtam, who was a friend of Bukharin, had
worked in the ministry of education of the new regime. Babel had
actually served in the Jewish-dominated Cheka for many years and wrote
almost autobiographically about his experiences in his stories. He was
also the mentor of Ilya Ehrenburg, World War II’s most notorious
propagandist. Both enjoyed life and indulged in the pleasures of the
Arbat. Both were executed in Stalin’s 1937 counter-revolution. Burovsky
and the mass of Russian people would maintain that they got what they
deserved.

Under the Czars and the Orthodox Church Russia gave the world the
paintings of Repin, Rublov, and other such immortals. The Communist
regime, on the other hand, introduced abstract “art” produced by such
worthies as Kandinsky, Malevich, Altman, Chagall, Shterenburg, and other
such. Again, Stalin, like Hitler, preferred socialist realism in art.
Whatever the objective merits of the works produced by the artists and
literary figures in the early Soviet Union, they reflected the Jewish,
not the Russian spirit.

Proceeding then to Stalin’s purge of the Red Army leadership and the
NKVD, Burovsky finds much to be applauded. Although Generals Zhukov and
Rokossovsky believed that Stalin’s purge had broken the spine of the Red
Army and was responsible for the losses in the first years of World War
II, Burovsky leans more to the views expressed by Viktor Suvorov in his
book The Purge,[5]namely
that the purge or cleansing actually improved the Red Army by removing
toxic and incompetent elements. Moreover, Trotsky, as first head of the
Army and Navy, had appointed many of the top military leaders.
Obviously, Stalin considered them tainted and their loyalty to him
questionable.[6]

Stalin purged the organs of State security (Cheka, NKVD), notoriously
Jewish strongholds, with a particularly heavy and rough brush.
According to Burovsky, about 20,000 members of these organs were purged,
including almost all the leaders of the Dzerzhinski era: A. Kh.
Artuzov, G. I. Boky, M. Ya. Latsis, M. S. Kedrov, V. N. Mantsev, G. S.
Moroz, I. P. Pavlunovsky, Ya. Kh. Peters, M. A. Trilisser, I. S.
Unshlikht, and V. V. Fomin. Of this Burovsky comments: “It would be
difficult to imagine a more repulsive, criminal, and dangerous group of
people.” (Diky, p. 240) (...)

As for the crimes attributed to and indeed committed by Stalin,
author Burovsky contends that had any of his political adversaries
achieved total power, the crime levels would have even been higher.
After all, it was Lenin and Trotsky, not Stalin, who laid the cruel and
bloody foundations of Communist rule in Russia. The secret police
organization, the Cheka, the predecessor and model for the later NKVD
and sister agencies, were established in December 1917, as was the
GULAG. Literally, armies of secret police ensured that the GULAG would
not want for slave labor. In 1919, at the onset of the Civil War
(1917–1922) Trotsky was made Peoples Commissar of Army and Navy, head of
the Red Army. For a decade in that and other high posts Trotsky was in a
prime position to fill the armed forces and government with his own
people, mostly Jews, often despite Stalin’s disapproval. During the same
period Stalin by virtue of his position as Party Secretary, a less
prominent but equally important position, had also been putting his own
people in critical posts. In 1929, after Lenin’s death, Stalin finally
succeeded in exiling Trotsky, but the shadow of his competitor for
leadership lingered on in the persons and policies of the government.
Thus, the Communist Party and state in the late 1930s still remained, as
most objective observers noted, essentially Jewish.

For example, in 1937 almost without exception the plenipotentiaries
(ambassadors) of the Soviet Union to the rest of the world were Jews:
Maisky in England, Surits in France, Yurenev in Germany, Shtein in
Italy, and Rubinin in Belgium. The Soviet Delegates to the League of
Nations were with one exception Jews: Finkelshtein-Litvinov, Rozenberg,
Shtein, Markus, Brenner, Girshfeld, Galfand, and Svanidze who was
Georgian. Litvinov was also head of the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs.
(Diky, p. 222)

At the time of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), the Soviet
Ambassador was Marcel Rozenberg; the military attaché was Lvovich
(pseudonym Loti). The Red Army officers commanding the international
brigades were: Division Commander Lazar Shtein (Emil Kleber); other
Jewish commanders were Grigori Shtein (Grigorovich), Corps
CommanderYakov Smushkevich (Duglas), Red Army General Batkin (Fritz),
and others. Abram Slutsky (Chernigovsky), head of the Soviet Foreign
Intelligence Service, NKVD, also came and joined with resident NKVD
agent General Aleksandr Orlov who supervised a private jail in Alkalade.
(Diky, p. 223)

Despite Stalin's purges, there were three million Jews living in the Soviet Union in 1939. By
early 1941, following the division of Poland and pursuant to
population-transfer provisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, there
were 5.4 million Jews inside the USSR. Operation Barbarossa, the German
attack on Russia occurred on 22 June 1941 when half the Jews in Poland were under the protection of the Red Army.

Burovsky notes that the end goal of both devils, Stalin and Trotsky,
was the same — world communism, but the means chosen by Trotsky to
achieve it would have caused worldwide mayhem and countless millions
more deaths. It was not long after the purge that Stalin succeeded in
having Trotsky himself murdered in 1940 in Mexico by which time war had
already broken out in Europe. In the same year of 1940 the
Anti-Comintern Pact was signed by a dozen nations with the statement,

recognizing that the aim of the Communist International,
known as the Comintern [Trotsky’s organization] is to disintegrate and
subdue existing states by all means at its command; convinced that the
toleration of interference by the Communist International in the
internal affairs of the nations not only endangers their internal peace
and social well-being, but is also a menace to the peace of the world
desirous of co-operating in the defense against Communist subversive
activities.

The United States, Great Britain, and France abstained from and even
objected to the Pact, believing (or saying they believed) Germany to be
the greatest threat. The line between the Axis powers and the Western
Allies in World War II was thereby drawn. It would take the West fifty
years to correct this mistake.

Soon after World War II and the founding of the state of Israel,
Stalin, following a policy of Russification and rejuvenation of the
victorious Communist State, attempted once again to reduce the number
and power of Jews in the Soviet Union.To this end, he planned another
purge, one that would necessarily involve many of his old Jewish
comrades.Before he could implement his plan, he was dead. Officially
the Soviet leader was reported to have died a natural death, but many
speculate that he was killed by the people he had planned to kill.[8]

The devil’s advocate, author Burovsky, rests his case in the defense of Stalin with the words:

Of course Stalin’s regime was awful! But in politics it
is very often necessary to choose, not between the good and the better,
but between the bad and the worse. The alternatives to Stalin would have
been even worse nightmares.…The entire history of the USSR may be seen
as an attempt to establish a utopia, and the civil war as the rejection
of the utopia by the people.… Like Mandelshtam and Ginzburg, the
“children of the Arbat” had not the slightest reason to repent; nor the
slightest interest in whom they destroyed…. It is a pity that Stalin did
not have another 10 years of life in which to say, like Napoleon, “the
revolution is over”, but we can be especially grateful that Stalin
killed the revolutionary bastards, the foul-smelling fungi that
accumulated on Arbat Street and that he prevented the fungus from
spreading to the rest of Russia and the world.That which has gone down
in history as “1937” was in fact the most brilliant and glorious event
in the Stalin era. Farewell Comrade Stalin! Thank you! (Burovsky, pp.
280, 284–285)

The verdict for Stalin, according to Professor Burovsky, must be “not
guilty” because of mitigating circumstances. The events and crimes so
described and attributed to Stalin must be seen as simply ugly episodes
of ongoing criminal violence perpetrated by one gangster against
another.

Endnotes:

[1] “Glorious 1937!”, Zavtra,
9 September 1997. The Russian national heroes are: General Aleksandr
Suvorov, General Mikhail Kutuzov, Admiral Pavel Nakhimov, and Admiral
Fyodor Ushakov. The Knight in the Tiger’s skin is Prince Tariel of
India, from the famous Georgian poem Vephkhviskhaosani.
[4] Andrei Diky. 200 Years Together: Jews in Russia and the USSR. Algoritm Publishing, Moscow, 2010, 320 p.

[5] Suvorov uses the Russian word ischishchenie instead of the usual chistka for “purge.” The former has more the meaning of “cleansing”or
the removal of toxic, dangerous elements; the later has more the
meaning of total housecleaning. Robert Conquest preferred to use the
expression The Great Terror rather than The Great Purge. Like so many of his contemporaries at Oxford, Conquest himself joined the Communist Party in “glorious 1937.”

On September 15, 1969, writing in the popular American nationalist newspaper, Common Sense,
which had, over the years, frequently featured the works of outspoken
Jewish-born American anti-Zionist spokesman Benjamin Freedman, one
Morris Horton (under his pen name “Fred Farrell”) wrote a fascinating assessment of the reality of Trotskyite Communism. Horton wrote in part:

Originally “Communism” was nothing but a tool of
the wealthy American Jews of New York. In the United States, and in much
of the rest of the world, it is still just that. Let us now address
ourselves to a question important to anyone who really wants to
understand Communism: “What is the difference between a Stalinist and a
Trotskyite? Some people will tell you:“All Communists are alike.”
This is a dangerous piece of shallow misinformation. It is acceptable
only if you are willing to substitute shallow sloganeering for real
knowledge. A Stalinist represents primordial Russian nationalism. A
Trotskyite represents the Jewish interests of New York City.The Jewish
interests of New York suffered a terrific setback one day many years
ago, when a taciturn hood planted an ax in Leon Trotsky’s skull in a
villa in Mexico. The world Communist conspiracy is not a Russian
conspiracy; it is an American Jewish conspiracy. Today it is falling
into great disrepute around the world. America is being blamed for
supporting communism around the world.Unhappily, the charge is true.
New York is the real hub of the conspiracy. If some of our
Anti-Communists would stand up four square and tell this plain truth, we
might possibly yet be liberated from Jewish misrule. Few
of them ever do. Most of the Communists and many of the Anti-Communists
are on the same payroll, the Jewish payroll. They carry on a sham
battle with each other. The first basic rule of this sham battle
is:“Never drag any real truth into the matter on either side; tell
anything else you want to tell, but never tell the truth.” This is the
basic background of most of the phony “experts” on Communism who have
been “experting” about it for forty years and haven’t made a dent in it.

Horton was particularly adamant in pointing out that the
American “anti-Communist” movement was increasingly falling into the
hands of very real Communists—the Trotskyites—who in the guise of
“fighting Communism” were actually working to introduce it into the
American system. This is a point that few anti-communists understood then and even today they find it difficult to digest. Horton wrote:

These people generate the literature on Communism that is generally available to the American public. They haveno interest in providing any genuinely valid information. Their aim is to manipulate public opinion.Therefore, they seek to divide the Gentile. They seek
to make the middle class believe that the working class is allied to Red
Russia; All of this is, and always was, pure hallucination, generated
by Jewish intellectual quacks in order to promote a minority tyranny
over the American Majority.

In his essay, Horton emphasized that the age-old labels of
“Right” and “Left” no longer had any real meaning—a point that even many
legitimate and self-styled modern-day American “conservatives” of the
21st century have yet to realize:

There is no genuine validity in either the “Right” or
“Left” positions in politics.These are artificial, Jew-invented
positions. Jewish control of communications is absolutely essential to
the success of this power system. Jewish political quackery would not
long survive exposure. The Right-Left Age is the
Jewish Age, and it is an age which, on the world stage, is now receding
into the past. If America continues to live in this Jewish past, then
America has no future.

Horton’s words—written nearly 50 years ago—continue to
reverberate. But to drive home the point further, it is worth reviewing a
translation of an analysis of Zionism published in Spanish in the
November 4, 1979 edition of Granma, the official newspaper voice of the
communist regime of Cuba’s Fidel Castro.(Similar versions of
this had previously appeared in the Soviet Union, at a time when there
were increasing public noises against Zionism, much to the dismay of the
American Trotskyites who were then reinventing themselves as “the
neo-conservatives.”)While this analysis from the communist point
of view has been superceded by the collapse of the Soviet empire as it
existed when this document was first published, it contains fascinating
insights into the sources of tension between Zionism and Communism.

The Zionist movement, created by the Jewish big
bourgeoisie at the end of the 19th century, was born with a decidedly
counterrevolutionary purpose. From the founding of the World Zionist
Organization in 1897 to the present, Zionism, as ideology and political
practice, has opposed the world revolutionary process.Zionism
is counterrevolutionary in a global sense in that it acts the world over
against the three major forces of revolution: the socialist community,
the working class movement in capitalist countries and the movement for
national liberation.Zionist counterrevolution began by making
inroads in the European working class movement. In the early years, when
the growth of monopoly capitalism and the expansion of reactionary
tendencies that accompanied the establishment of the imperialist phase
of capitalism demanded the unity and solidarity of the proletariat, the
Zionists focused on dividing the working class.They propagated
the thesis that all non-Jews were, and would always be, anti-Semites;
asserted that the only possibility for the Jewish masses’ well-being and
justice was to emigrate to the “promised land”; and defended class
collaboration, thus diverting the Jewish proletariat away from the
struggle for their real emancipation and dividing and weakening the
working class movement. It’s not fortuitous that in czarist police
archives one finds documents calling for support for the Zionist
movement as a way of stemming the tide of proletarian revolution.Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote at the time in his
diary:“All our youth; all those who are from 20 to 30 years old, will
abandon their obscure socialist tendencies and come over to me.”However, the efforts of Zionist counter-revolution could not hold back
the wheels of history.The victory of the Great October Socialist
Revolution in Russia ushered in a period of transition from capitalism
to socialism on a world scale. The first victory of the proletariat, the
premise of future victories, was a heavy blow to Zionism.Most
of the money that filled Zionist coffers came from Russia, where czarism
had humiliated and oppressed the Jews for centuries. Russia provided a
million immigrants for the Zionist colonization of Palestine. When the
Russian Revolution liquidated the exploitation of man by man, it also
destroyed the basis for Zionism in the Soviet Union.Leninist
policy on the national question toppled all Zionist myths that the Jews
could not be fully incorporated, with equal rights, into society and
destroyed all the racist claims on the inevitability of anti-Semitism.
The Zionists never did, and never will, forgive the Soviet state and its
Leninist Party, not so much for cutting off the money flow from Russia
and for the loss of workers for the colonization effort, but because the
Bolsheviks implemented a correct policy that incorporated the talents
and efforts of the Soviet Jews into the tasks of building a new society
and thus demonstrated the class origins of discrimination and
anti-Semitism, breaking with the past and providing a genuine solution
to the Jewish problem, a solution which was not and could never be a
massive exodus to Palestine.Zionist counterrevolution took on an
anti-Soviet thrust. Before October 1917 the Zionists collaborated with
Kerensky. Later they supported all the attempts at counter-revolution
and enthusiastically participated in the different white “governments”
set up in different parts of the country during the Civil War [in
Russia].They were active in all the moves against the Soviet Union from
abroad, and their powerful propaganda machine spread a spate of lies
about the first workers’ and peasants’ state in the world.Not
even the Soviet victory over German fascism, which saved so many Jewish
lives, made the Zionists change their anti-Soviet stand.With the
outbreak of the cold war the Zionists collaborated in all the
subversive and diversionary activities against the USSR and other
socialist countries. The secret services of the Zionist state of Israel
coordinated their spy activities with the CIA. Zionist agents played an
active role in the counter-revolutionary attempts in Hungary and
Czechoslovakia.Today Zionism seconds the hypocritical
anti-Soviet campaign on presumed violations of the human rights of Jews
in the Soviet Union and does all it can to put pressure on Soviet
citizens of Jewish origin so they will leave their true homeland and go
to Israel.This effort by Zionist counter-revolution can only lead to new
failures. And to complete the picture there is the Zionist
counter-revolutionary action against the national liberation movements.Soon after World War I, Zionist settlers penetrated into Palestinian
territory, acting as the spearhead of British imperialist interests in
opposition to the Arab peoples’ hopes for independence. Their role was
clearly spelled out by the prominent Zionist leader Max Nordau in a
statement to the British authorities:“We know what you want from
us: that we defend the Suez Canal.We must defend your route to India
which passes through the Middle East.We are ready to take on that
difficult task. But you must allow us to become powerful enough to carry
out that task.”And, as a matter of fact, the Zionists became a
power and succeeded in establishing their own state in 1948: the Zionist
state of Israel. Now their task is to defend oil routes, protect all
the interests of U.S. imperialism and block the advance of the Arab
revolution.Backed by tremendous amounts of imperialist economic
and military aid, the Zionists are constantly acting against national
liberation movements.At one time it was their mission to
penetrate African and Asian independence movements, guarantee that the
newly independent states followed paths acceptable to imperialism, that
they not stray from the confines of neo-colonialism. Israel offered
courses, advisers, all sorts of aid.But the ploy wasn’t very
successful. Israel’s increasing role as imperialism’s policeman in the
Middle East, its racism and avowed expansionism made the young African
and Asian nations see the dangers of Israeli “aid,”the treachery of
Israeli foreign policy.Nevertheless, the Zionist state took up a
new role in the struggle of world reaction against progress. It went
beyond the geographical confines of the Middle East, established
friendly ties with all reactionary regimes and began to supply arms,
equipment and advisers to those who were trying to suppress national
liberation struggles.The Israeli armaments industry specialized
in designing and producing all sorts of weapons for urban and rural
anti-guerrilla warfare.The South African racist regime, the
dictatorships of Guatemala and El Salvador, and the fascist Pinochet are
among the best clients of the Israeli armaments industry.Israeli arms sales in 1978 were estimated at $400 million.One of their best clients was the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza.Zionist counter-revolution was present in Somoza’s Nicaragua in the
form of Galil guns and Pull-push planes, but they couldn’t stop the
victory of the Sandinista revolutionaries.This is a symbol of
our times: neither the machinations of Zionist counterrevolution, nor
Israeli arms, can hold back the victorious march of the peoples of the
world.

(END OF THE GRANMA ARTICLE)

THE JUDAS GOATS THE ENEMY WITHIN
Michael Collins Piper

The “Israelization” of AmericaJudas Goat Number One: George W. Bush—Shill for Zionist Theoretician Natan Sharansky:Planning for Global War in the Name of “Democracy”

President George W. Bush may well rank—by virtue of his high office—as perhaps America’s most insidious and most dangerous Judas Goat. His role in guiding America into the war in Iraq—not to mention his lead part in covering up the truth about the forces behind the 9-11 attack on America—has cast him as a veritable Enemy Within-in-Chief, so to speak. Now he urges America to fight another war against Iran.
However, the truth is that Bush’s messianic call for a worldwide “democratic revolution” (enunciated in his second inaugural address and sounding much like the rhetoric of the global Trotskyite Bolshevik movement) was not really of his own making. His words were written by others far more intelligent than Young Bush.And the origins of Bush’s newfound philosophy are very telling indeed. Perhaps what is most frightening is that the rhetoric of the American president—prodded by his behind-the-scenes “advisors”—points toward more and more military action around the globe in the years to come.
Although a documentary, Bush’s Brain, suggested that Karl Rove, purportedly the president’s chief political tactician, is the mastermind who tells the president what to think, it is now clear—based on solid evidence—that Soviet-born Israeli cabinet minister Anatoly “Natan” Sharansky is the one who actually has bragging rights to that title. Despite the fact that he gained worldwide attention in the 1970s as a Soviet dissident, make no mistake in thinking that Sharansky was ever any kind of Western-style free-market conservative or anti-communist.
Instead, Sharansky was a traditional old-line communist who—like many others in the Soviet Union—simply ran afoul of the ruling regime.
But thanks to an adoring international media, Sharansky capitalized on his imprisonment by the Soviets—who accused him of being a CIA spy—and emerged as a much-touted “human rights activist.”
Later, after his release from prison, Sharansky emigrated to Israel and soon established himself as one of Israel’s most outspoken extremist leaders who damned even Israel’s heavy-handed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon—known as “the Israeli Caesar”—as being “too soft” on the Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
The role of Sharansky in guiding Bush’s thinking is no “conspiracy theory.” Instead, disclosures from the White House itself—published, although not prominently, in the mainstream media—demonstrated that not only did Sharansky personally consult with the president in drafting the now-controversial inaugural address, but also that at least two of Sharansky’s key American publicists were among those brought in to compose Bush’s revolutionary proclamation.
Bush himself told The Washington Times in an interview published on January 12, 2005—even prior to his inauguration: “If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy. It’s a great book.”
Buried in the very last paragraph of a very lengthy article published on January 22, 2005 The New York Times reported that “The president was given [Sharansky’s] book and asked Mr. Sharansky to meet with him
in the Oval Office . . .Mr. Bush also gave the book to several aides, urging them to read it as well. Mr. Sharansky visited the White House last November.”The Times did not say who gave the book to the president in the first place, but to find out who actually pressed the book upon the president might be very telling indeed.
Affirming the Times’ disclosure, The Washington Post likewise revealed on January 22, 2005 (although, again, in the closing paragraphs of an extended analysis) that an administration official said that planning for Bush’s address began immediately after the November election and that Bush himself had invited Sharansky to the White House to consult with him and that, in the Post’s words,“Sharansky also helped shape the speech with his book.”
It was the Post which revealed that two well-known hard-line “neoconservative” supporters of Israel—William Kristol, publisher of billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard magazine, and psychiatristturned-pundit Charles Krauthammer, a strident advocate for harsh U.S. military and economic warfare against the Arab and Muslim worlds—were also among those brought in to help draft the president’s address.
Kristol—in particular—and Krauthammer are generally acknowledged even in the mainstream media in America as being among those we’ve dubbed as “the high priests of war” who were instrumental in orchestrating the U.S.war against Iraq,was a measure high-up on Israel’s “want list” for the Bush administration.
It is no coincidence that the individual on the White House staff whom the Post said helped set up the planning conferences to direct Bush’s thinking was one Peter Wehner, director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives.Wehner—it happens—is a Kristol protégé, having been his deputy when Kristol was serving as chief of staff for former Reagan administration Education Secretary William Bennett himself a protégé of Kristol’s very influential father, famed “ex-Trotskyite” communist-turned-neo-conservative, Irving Kristol.
So, considering Kristol’s wide-ranging input, shaping Bush’s mindset, it is really no surprise that, as the Post put it,“Bush’s grand ambitions excited his neoconservative supporters who see his call to put the United States in the forefront of the battle to spread democracy as noble and necessary.”
Meanwhile, for his own part,William Kristol chimed in with an editorial in The Weekly Standard on January 24, 2005 declaring “it’s good news that the president is so enthusiastic about Sharansky’s work. It suggests that, despite all the criticism, and the difficulties, the president remains determined to continue to lead the nation along the basic foreign policy lines he laid down in his first term.”
The BBC News noted on January 22, 2005 that Sharansky “has in fact been moving in American conservative circles for some time.”
As far back as July 2002—just prior to the time Bush delivered a hotly-debated speech calling for “democratization” of the Arab world—neo-conservative Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was in attendance at a conference addressed by Sharansky during which the Israeli leader put forth the same demand.
Shortly thereafter, when Bush gave his own speech, echoing Sharansky, the Israeli hard-liner “provided an important bit of last minute affirmation,” according to American neo-conservative Richard Perle, who—between stints in government, during which time he was suspected of espionage on behalf of Israel—peddled weapons for an Israeli arms manufacturer.
Although the news of Sharansky’s profound influence was not widely known among grassroots Americans, it was big news in Israel where The Jerusalem Post headlined a story declaring “White House takes a page out of Sharansky’s democracy playbook.” In fact, the Israeli newspaper actually went so far as to say that Bush is “doing [Sharansky’s book] promotion free of charge,” pointing out that the president hyped Sharansky’s book in an interview on CNN.
But it’s not only Bush who is relying on Sharansky. On January 20, 2005, Scotland’s independent-minded newspaper, The Scotsman, noted that “Mr. Sharansky’s influence on the way Washington now sees the world was clear this week when Condoleeza Rice quoted him during her Senate confirmation hearings,” confirming that the Israeli hard-liner is very much the brains behind Bush policy.
The fact that Sharansky happened to be in charge of “diaspora affairs” in the Israeli cabinet was significant indeed.The term “diaspora” refers to all Jews living outside the borders of Israel and the “mission statement” of Sharansky’s cabinet office says it places its “emphasis on Israel, Zionism, Jerusalem and the interdependence of Jews worldwide.
In essence, this translates into a single, general aim: securing the existence and the future of the Jewish people wherever they are.” In short, Sharansky is no less than a powerful spokesman for the worldwide Zionist movement.And now, beyond any question, his views are directing George Bush’s worldview.
Considering all of this, it is no wonder that on January 22, South Korea’s English-language media voice, Chosun Ilbo, went so far as to describe Sharansky’s philosophy as outlined in his book The Case for Democracy—now being touted by Bush—as “a blueprint for U.S. foreign policy.”
The propaganda line of Israeli hard-liner Natan Sharansky upon which the president’s inaugural address was based was virtually a complete turn-about from Bush’s rhetoric in the 2000 presidential campaign.
This contradiction is a point that—theoretically—should have given pause to many Republicans who voted for Bush the first time he ran for the presidency.
Enthusiastically proclaiming in a front-page analysis on January 21, 2005 that Bush’s address laid the “groundwork for [a] global freedom mission,” The Washington Times—a leading “neo-conservative” voice which advocates a hard-line globalist foreign policy in sync with Israel’s security demands—stated flat out that:

President Bush’s inaugural address sends the United States on a new, expansionist and far more aggressive global mission to free oppressed countries from dictators—a sharp departure from his 2000 campaign that warned against becoming the world’s policeman . . . an ambitious, perhaps unprecedented internationalist doctrine that could deploy U.S. military power far beyond America’s present commitments . . . .

For its own part, the Times’s daily “liberal” counterpart, The Washington Post, declared editorially on January 21, 2005 that Bush’s address was “more Wilsonian than conservative”—that is, recalling the messianic internationalism of former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, hardly a hero of American nationalists or traditional conservatives.
Effectively endorsing Bush’s turnabout, the Post acknowledged.
that Bush’s pronouncement “promised an aggressive internationalism, one that if seriously pursued would transform relations with many nations around the world,”saying that if Bush is serious,U.S. policy “is on the verge of a historic change.”
James Steinberg, the former deputy national security advisor in the Clinton administration, found Bush’s emergence as the voice of globalism quite intriguing, inasmuch as it is a determined betrayal of what had been traditional Republican opposition to international meddling.
Steinberg told The New York Times on January 21, 2005 that it is “quite remarkable that one of the notions that’s been so resisted by Republicans is the idea of a deep interdependence in the world, and now [Bush has] essentially adopted the notion that tyranny anywhere threatens freedom anywhere.”
In the same vein, hard-line American-based Zionist Robert Kagan, one of the most aggressive neo-conservative media voices, echoed American Free Press (AFP) when he wrote in the Post on January 23, 2005 that Bush’s “goals are now the antithesis of conservatism.”
According to Kagan,“They are revolutionary.”
In its January 31, 2005 editorial,AFP called Bush a “revolutionary,” and this came very much to the dismay of many traditional conservatives who—inexplicably—still viewed the president as the voice of American patriotism.
These folks are evidently unaware that what is called “neo-conservatism” is anything but what Americans long viewed to be “conservative” in the traditional American nationalist sense of the word.
However, Zionist Robert Kagan understands this distinction and that’s precisely why he said that “Bush may lose the support of most oldfashioned conservatives” once they realize what his new internationalist policy is all about. In short, conservatives have been “had.”And that’s why AFP reminded its readers not to forget what Jesus said: “Beware wolves in sheep’s clothing” or, rather,“Beware the Judas Goats.”

In the meantime, however, Sharansky’s influence on American Republicanism—under George Bush and in the years ahead—remains substantial. In fact, there’s a new brand of Republicanism, at least according to Ken Mehlman, whom President George W. Bush personally hand picked, following the 2004 election, to serve as chairman of the Republican National Committee.
In a March 14, 2005 speech in Washington to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the lobby for Israel, the GOP’s national chairman candidly and enthusiastically described himself as a “Sharansky Republican.”
What was so striking is that this appeared to be the first time in American history that the chairman of one of the national parties used the name and ideology of a political leader from a foreign nation—one known as an “extremist” at that—to describe his own ideology.
In the past, there were self-described “Taft Republicans,” who supported the presidential ambitions of the nationalistic and traditionally conservative Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio—popularly known as “Mr. Republican”—who was the undisputed leader of the America First bloc in Congress from 1936 until his untimely (and some say “suspicious”) death in 1953.
Later, there were the conservative “Goldwater Republicans”who—under the leadership of Sen. Barry Goldwater (Ariz.)—set the stage for the ascendancy of the “Reagan Republicans” who came to power in 1980 under the popular two-term president, Ronald Reagan.
At the same time, in opposition to the Taft and Goldwater Republicans, there were the more liberal and internationalist-minded Republicans who rallied behind New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey and Wall Street lawyer Wendell Willkie,dubbing themselves—naturally—“Dewey Republicans” and “Willkie Republicans.”
And later, of course,many of those same party leaders evolved into “Rockefeller Republicans” following New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. And there were even a few folks, for a time, who called themselves “Eisenhower Republicans,” stressing their so-called “mainstream, moderate” point of view (however defined) in the spirit of America’s 35th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Now, however, the new GOP national chairman is not calling himself a “Reagan Republican” or even a “Bush Republican” (after the reigning GOP president who is wildly popular among grass-roots members of his party), but, instead, is hailing a foreign leader—a known extremist—as the role model for what 21st century Republicanism is all about.
And this is a direct legacy of George W. Bush who so proudly installed Sharansky as one of the GOP’s ideological dictators, betraying the historic legacy of the GOP. Sharansky’s policy of promoting “global democracy”is hardly in the American tradition, but it’s now part and parcel of what the “modern” Republican Party is all about.

Stop and think for a moment:the last Gulf War in 1991 ended erev - just before - Purim. This Gulf War began motzei - just after - Shushan Purim. Get the picture? In between, "The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honor." (Book of Esther 8:16)

Of course this war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein is for us. Even the anti-Semites, like Patrick J. Buchanan and Congressman Jim Moran know it. (...)

However, we already knew that this war is for us - i.e., the Jews and Israel. Chazal - our sages - throughout the ages have explained the Torah, telling us that everything that happens in the world is for the benefit of the Jewish People.

(...)Read the Purim story in Megilat Esther again, it is a rags to riches story on a national scale. Haman, the proto-typical anti-Semite, plans mass murder of the Jews and in the end pays with his life, the life of his ten sons - all hanged - and the Jews kill 75, 800 members of the anti-Semitic - i.e. Nazi - party of the time.

This is not so different from the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, when 23 Nazi war criminals were tried. Originally 11 were to have the death penalty imposed if found guilty. Everybody in those days thought that they would be shot - as is customary in military executions - or get the electric chair - as was common in the United States. But when the judges announced the verdict of guilty, they also said that hanging would be the method of execution. Two hours before the execution, they found Hermann Goering dead in his cell. He had committed suicide. That left only 10 Nazis to execute.

There is more to this story than meets the eye. In Megilat Esther (9:7-9), when it describes the execution of Haman's ten sons, their names are listed in a vertical column. If you look at the Hebrew closely, you'll notice extra-small letters in three of the names. The first name, Parshandata, has a small tav. The seventh name, Parmashta, has a small shin. The tenth name, Vayzata, has a small zayn. Hebrew letters are also used as numbers, as well as for dates in the Jewish calendar. Tav, shin, zayn numerically means 707, corresponding to the year 5707, which began with Rosh HaShanah - the Jewish New Year - on September 25, 1946. On October 16, 1946, as foreshadowed in the names of Haman's ten sons, ten Nazi leaders were hanged as warcriminals. And if that doesn't impress you, out of nowhere, with the rope around his neck, Julius Schtreicher - editor of Der Sturmer, the Nazi propaganda newspaper - shouted out with flaming hatred in his eyes, just as the trap door opened, "Purimfest 1946!" It was reported in the international press of the day.

As I said earlier, of course this war is for the Jews and Israel, and instead of hiding from the accusation, or crying, "anti-Semitic slur", we should gratefully acknowledge what the Master of the Universe is doing to our enemies for us. Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Bashar Assad, Osama Bin-Laden, and the other dictators, terrorists and mullahs of the region, are the modern day Hamans and Hitlers.(...)

Yes, the war is for the Jews. But it is also for all decent, peace-loving and freedom-loving people. Just as when the Jews were saved from Egyptian slavery, liberated, given the Torah at Mt. Sinai, and brought into the Holy Land, the world now has a great opportunity to rid itself of the Hamans, Hitlers, and Pharaohs who want to kill or enslave them today. (lire la suite...)

(...) Blu Greenberg, an Orthodox feminist leader based in New York, supports the Bush administration’s campaign against Iraq as a “preventive war,” much as the ancient Jews defended themselves against Haman’s plot to destroy them.(...)

Rabbi Martin Weiner of San Francisco, outgoing president of the Reform movement’s rabbinical union, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, used Shabbat Zachor to draw a line from Amalek to Hitler to Saddam. A modern-day Amalek, Saddam has attacked four of his neighbors, gassed tens of thousands of his own people and pays stipends to suicide bombers, Weiner said, so “it’s terribly important to remove him.” Last September, Weiner was among those who backed a resolution from the Reform movement’s Union of American Hebrew Congregations urging a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, if Congress supported it and U.N. backing was sought. But for Reform Rabbi Don Rossoff, of Temple B’nai Or in Morristown, N.J., Amalek casts a very different shadow. Rossoff said he has refrained from publicly sermonizing this Purim about the war, which he opposes, because he is “haunted by Baruch Goldstein, who called the Arabs Amalek.” Goldstein, a doctor in an Israeli settlement near the West Bank city of Hebron, shot to death 29 Palestinians praying in Hebron’s Tomb of the Patriarch on Purim Day in 1994. Saddam is “a tyrannical, murderous dictator” who “ would probably wipe out Israel if he could,” Rossoff added. “But he’s not the only one around. His name just starts with ‘H,’ ” like Haman.(...)

Purim.
One of the most popular Jewish holidays among Orthodox, traditional and
so-called secular Jewish Israelis alike. The streets are packed with
children and adults wearing costumes, make-up and all sorts of
masquerading, on their way from one joyous Purim party to the next.
Happy days. But behind the carnivalesque masks, ominous demons are
lurking.

Tel Aviv, Sunday, February 24th

Hanan Usruf, a 40-year-old Arab sanitation worker for the city, was savagely beaten by some dozen Jewish men. The Jerusalem Post reported that Usruf’s injuries

include a fracture in his
right eye socket and deep lacerations on his right ear and across almost
his entire head. His vision is blurred in his left eye, but he can make
out small numbers and letters, doctors said.

The Times of Israel added
that the victim – an Israeli citizen, one should add – attacked by
“drunken youth” required dozens of stitches and that doctors were doing
their best to save his eye; under his horrendous photo in hospital, Usruf is quoted saying that

the youths kicked him and
broke bottles on his head while shouting racial epithets at him. “They
shouted things like ‘f**kin’ Arab’ and ‘get your own country.’

Jerusalem, Monday, February 25th

Hana Amtir, an Arab woman
standing at the tram stop near the central bus station, was attacked by a
group of young Jewish women. AFP quotes a (Jewish) eyewitness who took pictures of the attack and documented it on Facebook:

Suddenly shouts were heard,
and a group of young religious Jewish women confronted the woman and
suddenly a young Jewish woman punched her in the head, […] the rest then
joined in, hitting and shoving the Arab woman. The woman tried to fight
them off but they shouted at her not to dare touch Jews and they
continued as a group to attack her and even forcibly pulled off her head
covering, […] the incident was witnessed by a security guard from the
rail company and a group of ultra-Orthodox Jewish students who stood by
and did nothing.

Framing

Both events – the lynch in Tel Aviv and the attack in Jerusalem – were reported widely in the Israeli media (separately or eventogether [Hebrew]),
justly framed as hate crimes, sometimes with reference to similar
crimes in the recent past. Some public protest followed – a
demonstration, petitions and op-eds. However, no report I’ve seen
mentioned the fact that both crimes were committed on Purim (24.2), a
one-day holiday that lasts a day longer in Jerusalem (24-25.2). At best,
one could find the holiday mentioned in passing, for instance in the Times of Israelthat
also described the Tel Aviv victimizers as drunken: “Police had yet to
make any arrests […] After detaining suspects, the police will determine
whether the attack was racially motivated, or the action of out-of-hand
Purim revelers,” as if racist motivation and Purim revelry were
mutually exclusive. But as a rule, Purim was simply ignored as
irrelevant.

Is the Jewish holiday really irrelevant? The notion that the attackers were drunken can be easily traced back to the religious duty to
get drunk on Purim. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Purim has
been identified with Jewish violence (and with accusations of violence
against Jews, true or false) for centuries. Just think of the West Bank
town of Hebron for example: it was Purim 1981 when Jewish settlers
brought down the roof over an Arab upholstery in “Beit Hadassah”,
expelling its owner and taking over the house, a crucial step in what
has since developed into a full-fledged ethnic cleansing at the heart of
the Palestinian town. The settlers’ Purim parades in that city have
become a tradition of provocations, with Jewish violence escalating from
year to year – culminating in Purim 1994, when a Jewish settler massacred 29
and injured 125 Muslim worshippers in the Cave of the Patriarchs. The
butcher joined the settlers’ hall of fame: “Purim in Hebron after 1994
was like Purim in Hebron since 1981, only more so – with a new Jewish
hero for Jewish children to dress up as,” writes Israeli historian Prof
Elliott Horowitz in his excellent Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (2006,
p. 8), that documents the roots and history of Jewish Purim violence
(alongside with its anti-Semitic abuses by Christians) from ancient
times to the present.

Why Purim?

Like any legacy stretching from
the Ancient World through the Middle Ages to Modern Times, Judaism is a
multifaceted culture: it can be universal as well as nationalist;
egalitarian as well as racist; liberal, even revolutionary as well as
ultra-conservative – all these messages can be found in it. Among other
things, Purim, however, has always reflected deep genocidal phantasies
of revenge. The Book of Esther, the textual basis for this holiday,
tells the story of the miraculous saving of the Jews of Persia from
their enemies, most notably the evil Haman. It ends with the hanging of
Haman by the Persian King. Consequently, the Jews take revenge and kill
Haman’s ten sons, murder several hundreds of non-Jews in the capital
Susa, and then massacre seventy-five thousand non-Jews all over Persia.
That’s how the Book of Esther ends. The (probably non-existent)
historical foundations of these events are irrelevant: it’s the myth and
the memory that matter.

The genocidal roots of Purim go
even deeper: Haman, as the short Book of Esther repeatedly stresses, is
an “Agagite”, that is, an offspring of Agag. Agag was the King of the
ancient Amalekites, the archetypal enemy of the Jews, on which the Bible
commands to inflict genocide: “you shall blot out the remembrance of
Amalek from under heaven; do not forget” (Deuteronomy 25,19). When King
Saul sins by sparing King Agag’s life, God regrets He had made him king
of Israel, and Prophet Samuel “hews Agag in pieces before the Lord” (I
Samuel 15,33).

These are not just idle
interpretations for the learned or deep secrets known to the few; it’s
all anchored in the liturgical practice of Purim. While the public
reading of the Book of Esther is at the heart of the holiday itself, the
Torah-text on blotting out Amalek is read in synagogue on the “Sabbath
of Remembrance”, the last Saturday before Purim.Once the Arabs are seen
as Haman/Amalek, Purim turns into a carneval of incitement against them.

Educating Israeli Soldiers

The Chief Rabbinate of the Israeli army has recently produced ashort video (in
Hebrew) to “explain” Purim to Israeli soldiers. It opens by stating the
obvious, namely that Persia is today’s Iran; among the images that
flash every now and then when Haman is mentioned we see not only
Ahmadinejad, but also Hezbollah’s leader Nasrallah, as well as (several
times) Hitler, and, yes, Jesus Christ, who also makes a brief appearance.
In a baseless rewriting of the legend, obviously aimed against
present-day Palestinians, Haman and his sons are said to have resided in
the Land of Israel, where they were inciting against the Jews and
demanding to stop construction in Jerusalem(!) before moving to Persia, where the Book of Esther takes place.

In other words, the army
“educational” video draws a line from Haman to Jesus, to Nazi Germany,
to today’s Iran and Hezbollah, as well as to the present-day
Palestinians. And Haman, as the video doesn’t even bother to remind its
viewers, is Amalek, the eternal enemy of the Jews: “you shall blot out
the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven, do not forget.”

From Hebron to Tel Aviv

It’s truly amazing that the
Israeli media ignored the Purim context of the violent events in Tel
Aviv and Jerusalem. Jewish Israelis are witnessing a trend of
“rediscovering of” and “reconnecting to” their “Jewish roots”. In such
an atmosphere, one would expect those “rediscoverers” to be aware the
Jewish context of the violence: after all, this is also part of the
Jewish legacy they are allegedly so fond of. But no: instead of coming
to terms with the lights and shadows of the rich Jewish tradition,
non-Orthodox Israelis fall prey to ominous Jewish demons without even
noticing them, demons that have enjoyed an uninterrupted existence among
Orthodox Jews like the radical settlers of Hebron, but have now sneaked
even into “secular” Tel Aviv.

A Word From Sgt. Raymond Turner, USA

"If I were the 'Stalin of America' most of our govt and media would be shot for treason or sent off to a FEMA camp or put to work on infrastructure projects. AIPAC and the Rothschild’s Federal Reserve would be no more. The debt would be erased over night. Lobbies and all political donations outlawed. MOSSAD agents in America would be shot on sight. And if Israel didn’t like it, some of our 81 nuclear attack subs and 11 carriers would finally be put to good use.John Hagee would simply be put on a starvation diet. Pam Geller sent to a concubinage in Saudi Arabia. Alan Dershowitz and Joe Lieberman parachuted into Afghanistan wearing IDF officer’s uniforms and MOSSAD ID. George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld taken to Nevada and tied feet-first to wild stallions. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh cast adrift on a life raft in the western Atlantic at 20 degrees north in the middle of Hurricane season. The entire lot of neo-cons involved in 9-11 would be loaded onto a remote control jet with just enough fuel to make it 500 miles off the east coast at 30,000′. These are only a few of the just ends for the traitorous agents of Israel.This country would be cleaned up in short order."Sgt. Raymond Turner, USA